May 3, 2014

If a reporter agrees that a conversation or event is off-the-record, then of course he cannot print what was said during that interchange. But the unwritten rule—the one that directly applies here—is that if a reporter enters an off-the-record event uninvited and has not agreed to the off-the-record terms, he is free to report what happens inside that event. It’s the responsibility of the event organizers to keep reporters from entering events without invitations. As long as the reporter does not misrepresent himself and does not attempt to conceal a recording device, the event is fair game. That’s the rule....

People keep saying he "sneaked in," but what does that mean? The Trilateral Commission meeting was disclosed by the State Department and marked "closed press." The location was undisclosed but Rogin had a tip that it was at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, so he went there and "walked straight to the front entrance of the room, nodded politely to the staffer at the door (she nodded back) and entered along with dozens of other people who were filing in."

Rogin says the only thing he regrets is helping himself to the pork loin, chicken, and pilaf at the lunch buffet.

A reporter quoting accurately and in context a public official in his capacity as a public official is somehow journalistically unethical? I suppose if no Republican official is involved it must be so according to the left in its self appointed capacity of Deciders In Chief.

So, it's okay to ruin Mr. Sterling's life by exposing a private citizen's personal conversations, but someone has ethical issues with recording the comments of an official paid by the taxpayers when he's speaking "publicly"? **

If this was an off the record event, why was no one checking credentials and IDs at the door? I mean, hell, I've been to IT trade shows with better security, much less a gathering of august members of the foreign policy establishment.

** Any matter that the Sec of State discusses that's not a question of national security is "public", including a discussion at the Tri-Lat Commission.

I also immediately thought of the Romney recording. IIRC, the "recorder" was a hotel employee (bartender?) not a member of the press.

So Romney was a candidate for President but still a private citizen secretly recorded by a hotel employee with malicious intent. This is purportedly OK.

Kerry is a serving member of the administration speaking directly to his area of public responsibility. No one present had any reasonable reason to think that his comments reflected anything other than US policy. A reporter is present who reports his comments. This is purportedly not OK.

They may be unavoidable, but the problem is anonymous tips and off the record comments, NOT how they become publicly known. Without them, the "ethics" become much simpler.

I'm amused that Kerry's comments were made before the Trilateral Commission. If you listen to conservative talk radio (as I do from time to time) you'll hear good right wing folks who are very very concerned about the dastardly sorts of things that go on behind closed doors at the Trilateral Commission.

Considering that Jean Fraud Kerry felt comfortable making his statement to the Trilateral Commission, maybe there's something to that paranoia.

But me--heck I don't worry about the Trilateral Commission, and I do enjoy hearing Kerry put his wingtips in his mouth.

"There's an effort to controversialize reporting that can be damaging to certain interests and its their effort to make it appear as though very legitimate lines of criticism and fair reporting are in fact somehow controversial and by saying it often enough I think they've convinced people that in fact it is." - Sharyl Attkisson

Also, is an off-the-record situation a legal or moral standpoint? What if a reporter reports on off the record comments?

Further, if the comments or anything said at this dinner party is off the record, what the heck is a reporters interest in it? "Yeah, some really cool shit was said, but if I tell you, I'll have to kill you."

Rereading my last comment, I had to laugh at my effort to be careful about the expectations of Kerry's audience.

They're the Trilateral Commission. They had every expectation that Kerry's comments did represent US policy. Otherwise, why are they there? I expect every one of them in attendence thinks himself smarter than John Kerry. They're not there to hear his personal opinions or amusing anecdotes.

That said. It begs the question. Trilateral commission or not, why are they privy to an off the record briefing on US foreign policy unavailable to the citizenry?

I imagine that strategic stock trades may have been made both during and immediately after the meeting that if done on tbe basis of private information outside the cover of (private) public policy would be subject to insider trading prosecution.

I am constantly amazed that public officials and public figures think they can say things "off the record" or "in confidence" to a group of people, and not have it reported all over the world within a few days.

I like the free lunch part of this story best. Do you suppose that the press would rebel if they had to pay for their lunch? Aren't there some guidelines about this sort of thing?

The reason that they do not disclose "off the record" stuff is threeefold. (1) If they did disclose, the reporter and the news organization would be severely punished by losing all access. (2) Off the record is one step away from the confidential source, and they can not live without the confidential source. (3) They think they are really cool if they know something you and I do not.

I wonder if there are any american jews that are sorry the voted for obama, twice. Its pretty clear Barak Hussein Obama will be instrumental in disengaging the U.S from Israel and letting the Mullahs in Iran obtain a nuclear bomb.